DC should abolish ANCs

[Anonymous]

Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

[Anonymous]

Oath of Office. Not path.

[Anonymous]

I, [name], having been duly elected as a Commissioner of the Advisory Neighborhood
Commissions OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA do solemnly swear or affirm that:
I, [name], will support and defend the Constitution of the United States; that I will perform such
duties as may be assigned to me as a member of said Commissions to the best of my ability
without fear or favor; that I will exercise my best judgment and will consider each matter before
me from the viewpoint of the best interest of the District of Columbia, as a whole; and that I will
faithfully discharge said duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

OP here (and ANC commissioner). I've read the Oath of Office quite a bit and offered it to my colleagues who seem to forget about it.

"These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem." is a great description of some constituents who fail to understand that "being heard" and "being obeyed" are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

OP here (and ANC commissioner). I've read the Oath of Office quite a bit and offered it to my colleagues who seem to forget about it.

"These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem." is a great description of some constituents who fail to understand that "being heard" and "being obeyed" are different.

I thought you were supposed to be an advocate helping people solve problems with city services? Now you're a gatekeeper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

OP here (and ANC commissioner). I've read the Oath of Office quite a bit and offered it to my colleagues who seem to forget about it.

"These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem." is a great description of some constituents who fail to understand that "being heard" and "being obeyed" are different.

I thought you were supposed to be an advocate helping people solve problems with city services?

Yes. We do that.

Now you're a gatekeeper?

I think you may have reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

OP here (and ANC commissioner). I've read the Oath of Office quite a bit and offered it to my colleagues who seem to forget about it.

"These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem." is a great description of some constituents who fail to understand that "being heard" and "being obeyed" are different.

I thought you were supposed to be an advocate helping people solve problems with city services?

Yes. We do that.

Now you're a gatekeeper?

I think you may have reading comprehension skills.

Ha! may NOT have reading comprehension skills.
Oh, the irony of that typo.

[Anonymous]

The ANC Oath of Office does not preempt the statutory obligation of the ANC to provide a neighborhood forum, and of course, since Commissioners are elected, as a practical matter they have to be responsive to neighborhood concerns. But yes, this is a representative democracy, so regardless of what anyone individually wants, you don’t have a right to order your elected representative to do exactly that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

OP here (and ANC commissioner). I've read the Oath of Office quite a bit and offered it to my colleagues who seem to forget about it.

"These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem." is a great description of some constituents who fail to understand that "being heard" and "being obeyed" are different.

I thought you were supposed to be an advocate helping people solve problems with city services?

Yes. We do that.

Now you're a gatekeeper?

I think you may have reading comprehension skills.

I do, thank you.

"These people who think you should do their bidding". That is the mentality of a self-appointed gatekeeper not an advocate. You are interjecting your judgement between them and the city services you are supposed to be acting as a go between for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Id venture to say that not a single person on here has read the actual path of office.

It says to serve the best interests of the district as a whole. When your local Alma tells you to do her bidding or else she’ll accuse you of being corrupted, know with certainty that she is actually telling you to reject the oath your swore to uphold. These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem. They don’t understand the terms of the deal at all.

OP here (and ANC commissioner). I've read the Oath of Office quite a bit and offered it to my colleagues who seem to forget about it.

"These people who think you should do their bidding or else, they’re the real problem." is a great description of some constituents who fail to understand that "being heard" and "being obeyed" are different.

I thought you were supposed to be an advocate helping people solve problems with city services?

Yes. We do that.

Now you're a gatekeeper?

I think you may have reading comprehension skills.

I do, thank you.

"These people who think you should do their bidding". That is the mentality of a self-appointed gatekeeper not an advocate. You are interjecting your judgement between them and the city services you are supposed to be acting as a go between for.

DP. And you have a completely incorrect understanding of the statutory and practical role of ANC Commissioners. Do you actually believe they are your personal caseworker, no more no less? They are supposed to provide a forum for you to give your view. But they are not a “go between.”

[Anonymous]

If there are CM staff that are directing constituents to their ANCs for issues with respect to city agencies etc., then those staff are not doing their jobs. I've reached out to my CM and their staff about numerous issues and have never once been referred to my ANC rep. If they had, I would have got very angry. ANCs have a role and are generally helpful to governance in DC, but they should never serve as a go-between or gatekeeper for CMs and their staff. It seems that the issue here is more with a CM's staff and not with the ANC system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there are CM staff that are directing constituents to their ANCs for issues with respect to city agencies etc., then those staff are not doing their jobs. I've reached out to my CM and their staff about numerous issues and have never once been referred to my ANC rep. If they had, I would have got very angry. ANCs have a role and are generally helpful to governance in DC, but they should never serve as a go-between or gatekeeper for CMs and their staff. It seems that the issue here is more with a CM's staff and not with the ANC system.

What is the benefit of an ANC and how do they help governance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are CM staff that are directing constituents to their ANCs for issues with respect to city agencies etc., then those staff are not doing their jobs. I've reached out to my CM and their staff about numerous issues and have never once been referred to my ANC rep. If they had, I would have got very angry. ANCs have a role and are generally helpful to governance in DC, but they should never serve as a go-between or gatekeeper for CMs and their staff. It seems that the issue here is more with a CM's staff and not with the ANC system.

What is the benefit of an ANC and how do they help governance?

Precisely. They are primarily useful to dial 311, which anyone can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are CM staff that are directing constituents to their ANCs for issues with respect to city agencies etc., then those staff are not doing their jobs. I've reached out to my CM and their staff about numerous issues and have never once been referred to my ANC rep. If they had, I would have got very angry. ANCs have a role and are generally helpful to governance in DC, but they should never serve as a go-between or gatekeeper for CMs and their staff. It seems that the issue here is more with a CM's staff and not with the ANC system.

What is the benefit of an ANC and how do they help governance?

Precisely. They are primarily useful to dial 311, which anyone can do.

You seem to have suffered from poor ANC representation. True, the power of ANCs lies overwhelmingly in obstruction. But with talented and driven commissioners, ANCs can help lead a community in a proactive fashion. Frankly, this is really hard to do. When done, it is gravy.

Assuming you have an honest representative, they can be a source of factual, verifiable information. You probably don't suspect how incredibly necessary this is, but it is crucial. DC (or, at least my part of it) is full of high education, low (local) information voters. Since there is no legitimate coverage of local matters, people eager to pollute the public square can do so with abandon and with relatively few of the voters actually understand they're being spoon-fed manure.

[Anonymous]

They are useless